Mala fide exercise of service powers: suspension and leave revocation may be valid under rules, but fail if used for retaliation.

The service rules were read as permitting revocation of leave, suspension, and retention in service pending a misconduct enquiry, even where the officer was on leave preparatory to retirement and the suspension order was communicated after superannuation. The governing retirement framework was treated as applicable, and suspension was held valid at the stage when misconduct was under enquiry, before formal charge-sheeting. The document also states the core principle that a statutory power is invalid if exercised for an alien purpose or with mala fide intent. On the facts discussed, the majority treated the orders as retaliatory and vindictive, while the dissent considered the rules sufficient and mala fides unproved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government was empowered under the applicable service rules to revoke leave, suspend the officer and retain him in service pending departmental enquiry after the date of superannuation. (ii) Whether the impugned orders were vitiated by mala fides because they were issued for an alien and improper purpose.

Issue (i): Whether the Government was empowered under the applicable service rules to revoke leave, suspend the officer and retain him in service pending departmental enquiry after the date of superannuation.

Analysis: The statutory service framework permitted revocation of leave when public service exigencies required it, and suspension during the pendency of an enquiry into misconduct. The relevant retirement rule was held applicable to the officer through the general rules governing retirement, and the expression relating to a charge of misconduct was construed broadly enough to cover suspension at the stage when misconduct was under enquiry, even before formal charge-sheeting. The Court further held that the order of suspension could operate even though the officer was on leave preparatory to retirement and that communication of the order after the date of retirement did not affect its validity when the order had already been validly made and issued.

Conclusion: The Government had power to revoke the leave, suspend the officer and retain him in service pending enquiry. This issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned orders were vitiated by mala fides because they were issued for an alien and improper purpose.

Analysis: The governing principle is that a statutory power must be exercised bona fide for the purpose for which it is conferred, and if the authority takes into account extraneous considerations or acts to serve a private or personal grudge, the resulting order is invalid. On the evidence, the Court accepted that the officer had shown favours to the Chief Minister's family, supplied medicines and a sewing machine, and that relations later deteriorated after public allegations were made against the Chief Minister. The Court concluded that the dominant motive behind the suspension, revocation of leave and enquiry was not a bona fide disciplinary purpose, but retaliation and vindictive action prompted by personal hostility and the disclosures published in the press.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were vitiated by mala fides and could not stand. This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Concurring Opinion: The majority held that both the legal competence under the rules and the charge of mala fides were established in the appellant's favour, and therefore the orders had to be quashed.

Dissenting Opinion: Raghubar Dayal, J. held that the rules did authorise the impugned orders and that mala fides was not proved, and would have dismissed the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Government's action succeeded because the orders were invalidated for improper purpose, and the appellant obtained relief despite the contrary view of the dissenting Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power, though validly conferred, is void if exercised for an alien purpose or from mala fide motives; suspension and retention in service pending enquiry may be ordered under the service rules when misconduct is under enquiry, even before formal charge-sheeting.

---